The applicants approached this court on a certificate of urgency, seeking spoliatory relief on an interim basis and declaratory and interdictory relief in the final against the respondents.
At the hearing the respondents raised various points in limineviz:
(i) Whether the applicants had locus standi to seek protection of the court;
(ii) Whether the deponents to the founding affidavits had authority;
(iii) Whether spoilatory relief was available to the applicants when they allege more than possession i.e. go into the merits of the possession;
(iv) Whether the matter is urgent;
(v) That there are serious disputes of fact; and
(vi)... More
The applicants filed two applications, one for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of judgment and the other for rescission of judgment. The court, for expediency and in exercising its discretion conferred to it, in terms of r 4C of the High Court Rules, 1971, directed that the applications be argued one after the other and indicated that the judgements in the matters would be dealt with in one judgement. For ease of reference, the court will refer to the first application as “the application for condonation’’ and the second as “the application for rescission”. More
This is an application for summary judgment against the three respondents who are the defendants in Case No. HC 8904/10 (hereinafter referred to as “the main matter” or “the action”). The applicant is the plaintiff in the main matter, in which it instituted proceedings for the ejectment of the respondents from the assistant manager’s house at Good Hope Farm. The facts which underlie the dispute between the parties are as follows: More
The applicant employed the respondent as its Group Audit Manager. In that capacity she enjoyed the benefit of the use of a company motor vehicle, a Mazda Familiar, registration number AAM 7769 (“the vehicle”). The vehicle remained the property of the applicant. More
This appeal was filed by appellant on 19 September 2014 and respondent was invited to file a response but did not do so. Since then nothing has happened on the matter making it eligible to be decided under section 89 (2) (a) 1 of the Labour Act. The issue between the parties was about factual arguments on the respondents underpayments and entitlements. Arbitrator ruled that the respondent had a good case. More
At the hearing of this matter, a point in limine was taken that the Appellant was improperly before the Court in that it was approaching the Court with dirty hands.
It was submitted that in terms of law, the noting of an appeal does not suspend the decision appealed against. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The Learned Arbitrator after assessing the facts placed before him dismissed the appellant’s claim for lack of merit. The sole ground on which this appeal is based is that:
“The honourable Arbitrator erred in differentiating similar cases and disregards the precedence (sic) set by the Labour Court which is superior than the Arbitrator”
In this case the appellant asserted that the Arbitrator failed to follow precedent. The Arbitrator on the other hand considered the specific facts of this matter. Thereafter they made a determination in terms of... More
This is application for summary judgment. Applicant issued summons against respondent in which he is claiming the following relief-
1. Cancellation of lease agreement between the parties in respect of the property known as number 37 Hillview Road, Philadelphia, Harare.
2. Ejectment of respondent from number 37 Hillview Road, Philadelphia, Harare.
3. Payment of arrear rentals accrued from February 2009 to July 2010.
4. An order for payment of holding over damages at US$750.00 per month.
5. Costs of suit. More
The plaintiff owns premises which are being rented by the defendant. The plaintiff is a company dully incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. Its shareholding has changed by virtue of its majority shareholders selling their shares to Regimos Paints the current majority shareholder. More
Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. The employment relationship was terminated by retrenchment. The appellant decided to pay overtime wages due to respondent from the year 2009 to 2012. Appellant declined to pay overtime wages for the period 2005 to 2008. This resulted in the matter being referred to arbitration. More
On 15 February 2021 the Provincial Mining Director for Manicaland, acting on behalf of the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development indicated to cancellation of applicant’s certificates of registrations under G5383; G5384; G5386 and G5387 within 30 days after the receipt of the letter. The basis of the cancellations was that applicant had pegged and lodged its applications for registration on an area which was no longer open to pegging and prospecting since the area had already been pegged prior by respondent. Respondent had lodged its applications on 5 February 2019 and certificates issued. Applicant lodged its papers on 24... More
The applicant in this matter seeks as against the respondents an order as follows:-
“1. That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents be and are hereby directed to release a sum of USD58 000 belonging to applicants within 24 hours of service of this order upon them.2. That 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents be and are hereby directed to pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale jointly and severally with one paying and the other to be absolved.”
The background of this matter per applicant’s version is that applicant and 4th respondent entered into an agreement wherein... More
Respondent introduced a fourth shift at the workplace and this led to different interpretations of the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing Respondent’s subsidiary. The matter was brought before the Works Council which ruled against the employees. The employees are dissatisfied and have approached the Court for relief. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities and claimed that as at 7 May 2014, they were owed salary arrears running from November 2010 to December 2013. They then approached the National Employment Printing’s designated agent for conciliation. Failing this, the matter was referred to arbitration.
The terms of reference for arbitration were;
1. To determine the quantum of outstanding salaries due to the claimants; and;
2. Determine when the amounts should be paid.
In defence against the claim, the appellant contended that there was no basis for the... More
I was assigned from the Supreme Court to the High Court specifically to hear this matter.
The trial was conducted over a period of two days, at the end of which it was agreed between the parties that the parties would prepare their written submissions and submit them by certain specified dates. The deadlines were not all met, a circumstance that contributed to the delay in the preparation and handing down of this judgment. More
